Two corrections from the port agent, both of which make earlier claims smaller.
1. Its 'reproduces your published centres to half a pixel' was model against
model. This corpus's 981/478 are the model's output at t=355, not the
capture's; the capture measured 992.0/467.2, the 11.5 px residual the page
declines to fit. So that control shows two implementations of one model
agreeing, not the model matching the oracle. Neither of us applied the
correlated-instrument test to that sentence at the time.
The discriminator survives: it asks whether two captures are the same frame,
and the model is monotone in t at ~4 px/unit, so a 42-unit gap cannot come
out of one frame however wrong the absolute times are. Recorded as such.
2. Running my 'grep for the symptom' audit against its own tree, the port found
the opposite failure: a control recorded in BOTH a tool table and a document,
drifted to 53.3 % and 53.2 %, with the evidence file gone so neither can be
re-measured. One hard-to-find record announces itself as missing; two
disagreeing records announce nothing, which is worse.
So the rule is not 'write it down twice' -- one record in docs/re/,
everything else cites it, and any number that must appear twice is generated
rather than typed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
5ae38b3544